Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Oct 2009 14:47 UTC
Legal Let's do a little trip down memory lane. We're talking the '80s, early '90s, and we're looking at a company called Borland, which produced several well-known and popular products related to software development. Back in those days, Borland had an end user license agreement. However, contrary to the EULAs we know and despise today, Borland's 'No-Nonsense License Statement' was a whole lot simpler, and in fact, is a perfect example of how software should be treated.
Thread beginning with comment 389564
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It wasn't always nice
by moondevil on Fri 16th Oct 2009 07:22 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Borland was my favorite company for developer tools, while I was growing up and giving my first steps as a programmer.

But Borland licences were also problematic. I don't know if someone else here can remember this, but when Borland C++ 4.5 came out, the license forbade the developers to use it for developing software that would compete with Borland.

Then after the uproar from developers around the world not happy with this new license, Borland issued an EULA update, which removed the above mentioned restriction.

I cannot provide any web link. This was in the days were no Internet existed, most of this happened in Magazines like PC Techniques or BBS.

Still it was a great company and MFC is no match for OWL.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It wasn't always nice
by StaubSaugerNZ on Fri 16th Oct 2009 07:42 in reply to "It wasn't always nice"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


Still it was a great company and MFC is no match for OWL.


I agree. OWL was a very nice model and far more object oriented that the heap of macro rubbish that was MFC (a blight shared by Qt and Gtk+).

How soon everyone forgets! Borland C++ was a real threat to Microsoft's crappy Visual Studio. OWL was a dream compared to MFC, and had the possibility of being portable to OS/2 as well.

So what happened? MS delayed licensing the Win32 APIs to Borland ('cutting off their air' - although this phrase was earlier used by MS in an different context). Everyone was rushing to move to the exciting new Win32 platform Win95 and MS Visual Studio had the goods and Borland didn't (despite trying to get a license for it). Borland couldn't complain to Commerce as they needed the libraries from MS or they knew they were dead meat (they originally had Win32s compatibility library but that was a bridging step until the real Win32 library and platform came out). The rest, as they say, is history. Borland were only one in a long list of competitors to MS that were strangled for being a threat to the company that controlled the platform. That's why people with long memories are very, very wary about relying on Microsoft for technology (I bet you were too young at the time and now too full of hubris to remember this history Mono team?).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: It wasn't always nice
by deathshadow on Fri 16th Oct 2009 20:33 in reply to "It wasn't always nice"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

I'd take that statement one step further as IMHO the VCL is no match for OWL when it comes to simplicity of writing a windows program.

I loved OWL, particularly under TPW 1.5 - it was SO much easier for me to deal with than the Delphi/VCL was - hell in a number of ways the lack of a toolkit I could actually wrap my head around that worked native 32 bit (or under 64 bit OS at all) is what drove me to start writing web applications instead of continuing to use TPW.

But I have some wierd mental block in that department - I can hand compile Z80 machine language, but can't make the least bit of sense out of visual programming.

Edited 2009-10-16 20:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2